New All-Star Jersey is unveiled

[Bacchus]

Hell, two Original Six cities average worse attendance than any expansion team.

Sorry, what you are saying is utterly and entirely vacuous (Your insipidity makes me believe that a twelve year old accessed your account), and I couldn'd get past this completely erroneous statement. The Blue Jackets and Predators have better attendance that Montreal, Detroit, New York Rangers and Leafs? Right!

Check your facts: http://www.nhl.com/news/2006/04/269348.html

If you are refering to Boston's or Chicago's attendance, remember, we do not live in a Vaccume. Other problems affect attendance. Boston has lots of problems, including, trading away their superstar for junk. Having a bargain basement team for years. Etc. Also, these two teams are AMERICAN .... and lets face it, Hockey is a CND sport, and baseball and football is American. So your argument is moot.

Edited January 24, 2007 by Bacchus

[Bacchus]

Bacchus: I find your opinions generally offensive and disgusting, and I think your bias (perhaps not quite hatred, but close) against Americans is obvious, but deeply rooted, so I'm disengaging from that line of discussion.

Meh, you are obviously a jigoistic patriot who is blind to any of the blemishes, and only see the bright spots of your nation ( Like Jack Black in Shallow Hal). I am engaged to an American, so I don't see how I can hate them.

I challenge you to point out one thing in my statement that was driven by hate (tongue in cheek doesn't count!)

There are some shades of truth in what you said, specifcally about American's production/consumption/waste habits, and taking the compliments with the complaints, but apart from that, I don't think arguing anything further with you would be productive for anybody.

That was my point. Glad your jingoism didn't get in the way of understanding it.

[Fanpuck33]

Sorry, what you are saying is utterly and entirely vacuous (Your insipidity makes me believe that a twelve year old accessed your account), and I couldn'd get past this completely erroneous statement. The Blue Jackets and Predators have better attendance that Montreal, Detroit, New York Rangers and Leafs? Right!

Every expansion team from the 1990s on has better attendance this year than two Original Six teams, Chicago and Boston. That is a fact. You are out and out lying by saying I am wrong about this fact. I never stated that Columbus or Nashville had better attendance than Montreal, Detroit, New York, or Toronto. I have no idea why you even brought that up. I never even mentioned those teams by name. Don't put words in my mouth to make me look stupid. Grow up.

If you actually read my post, you will see that my whole point is that expansion, specifically in the south, is not what is hurting the game. I pointed to two traditional hockey cities to back that fact up. Having teams in the south isn't hurting the game when traditional hockey cities aren't even supporting their teams.

Meh, you are obviously a jigoistic patriot who is blind to any of the blemishes, and only see the bright spots of your nation ( Like Jack Black in Shallow Hal). I am engaged to an American, so I don't see how I can hate them.

I challenge you to point out one thing in my statement that was driven by hate (tongue in cheek doesn't count!)

That was my point. Glad your jingoism didn't get in the way of understanding it.

Are you kidding me? You call him a blind patriot and then quote something said by him that shows he clearly isn't? And who said anything about hate? You're the only one using that word.

[Bacchus]

Every expansion team from the 1990s on has better attendance this year than two Original Six teams, Chicago and Boston. That is a fact. You are out and out lying by saying I am wrong about this fact. I never stated that Columbus or Nashville had better attendance than Montreal, Detroit, New York, or Toronto. I have no idea why you even brought that up. Only reason to call me a liar about that and bring up things I never said is to make me out to be the idiot.

If you actually read my post, you will see that my whole point is that expansion, specifically in the south, is not what is hurting the game. I pointed to two traditional hockey cities to back that fact up.

Are you kidding me? You call him a blind patriot and then quote something said by him that shows he clearly isn't? And who said anything about hate? You're the only one using that word.

My point is that you have no point. So what, you name the two original 6 (American teams) that are struggling and use it to justify that expansion is working ... or that penetrating the American market hasn't been detrimental to the game. It side steps the point. Chicago and Boston have had ownership issues for years, and have cared more about keeping their budgets tight than having a good quality team. And why would they need to do that? Oh yeah, the local population cares more about tractor pulling that hockey. That is why they aren't doing well. And, all the original 6 CANADIAN teams are doing super well. Thank you very much.

(just a side note ... the team with the worst attendance in the league is St-Louis ... Americans, for the most part, do not care about hockey ... never have, probably never will. If the Blues left St-Louis I could garantee that there would not be the same hoopla that was created when the Jets and the Nordiques left Canada. Because, drum role please, Hockey is a Canadian passion (for the most part)).

No, I called him a blind patriot because he reacted to what I was saying because it didn't kiss America's ass ... he agreed with my points yet called me racists (or anti-American -- where have I heard that drivel before ... something about you are either with us or against us ... ah yes, the monochromatic world of Bush and his followers ... man he has had a tragic impact on the youth today), without backing it up with any specific details. What, in all that I said, was anti-American (and not, need I remind you, tongue and cheek)?

Look in the mirror. Check yourself out, and be pround of who you are. But don't be blind, and reject criticism just because you want to live the delusion that you are perfect. I can listen to criticize Canada without getting my panties in a bunch and getting all reactionary ... even when it is not properly argued or thought out.

P.S. I don't have to twist your words to make you look like an idiot.

[Fanpuck33]

My point is that you have no point. So what, you name the two original 6 (American teams) that are struggling and use it to justify that expansion is working ... or that penetrating the American market hasn't been detrimental to the game. It side steps the point. Chicago and Boston have had ownership issues for years, and have cared more about keeping their budgets tight than having a good quality team. And why would they need to do that? Oh yeah, the local population cares more about tractor pulling that hockey. That is why they aren't doing well. And, all the original 6 CANADIAN teams are doing super well. Thank you very much.

(just a side note ... the team with the worst attendance in the league is St-Louis ... Americans, for the most part, do not care about hockey ... never have, probably never will. If the Blues left St-Louis I could garantee that there would not be the same hoopla that was created when the Jets and the Nordiques left Canada. Because, drum role please, Hockey is a Canadian passion (for the most part)).

P.S. I don't have to twist your words to make you look like an idiot.

Good grief. You continually ignore what I am saying; you're really getting on my nerves. I am not saying expansion is working. I am saying that American expansion is not the problem. I agree 100% with you that expansion has hurt the game, I've already said that. I am saying that expansion in general is the problem, not just expanding in the southern US. As I already said, and you apparently ignored, just the simple fact that there are more teams is why the game isn't as exciting as the old days. More teams means more players, which means more players with lower skill levels are getting jobs in the NHL. That would happen if they expanded anywhere, regardless of location. More average players means the talent is spread much thinner than it used to be, thus teams as a whole are not as good. That is the problem, not having teams in the Southern US.

Also, I am attacking the idea that expansion cities like Florida and Atlanta do not deserve teams. This wasn't said here, but I've heard it a million times, and it just blows my mind. Perrenial powerhouse New Jersey has one of the worst attendance rates in the league. Why do we never hear anyone call for them to contract New Jersey? Washington is an up and coming team and they have horrible attendance, why not complain about them? Or St. Louis? Why do people always pick on Tampa, Florida, Carolina, etc?

I don't know where you keeping getting the idea that I think hockey is super popular in the US because I don't think that at all. I know full well that even making left turns for three hours is more popular in the US than hockey. I'm not an idiot, I know hockey is popular in Canada. You continually put words into my mouth trying to make me look bad.

P.S. 3rd strike is calling someone an idiot.

[Colin]

What the hell happened to this thread? I go away for a day or so and all of a sudden it's a political nightmare. The Americans have nothing to do with the popularity of hockey - hockey isn't Canadian or American, it's an international sport. Why we as Canadians have to "claim" the sport is beyond me. Sure, maybe we invented it (debatable) and yes, we're the best at it right now, but hockey is the 2nd biggest international sport in the world if you look at the "big-5" (football, baseball, basketball, hockey, and SOCCER); soccer being by far the largest.

The NHL is a North American sport, and who can blame it for trying to move into untapped US markets. The fact they've been quasi-successful at best goes more to the grass-roots problems (as someone mentioned) along with an incredibly poor marketing strategy (awknowledged by those outside the hockey world). The only way for hockey to permanently establish itself in the lower states is to have large hockey programs installed across the board; the populace has to be exposed to the game from a young age. (And when that happens, Canada's grip on the sport is going to waver dramatically.)

These are all business decisions, and if you've ever been in any kind of business classes, the first thing they tell you is that business is international - even when you think it's just local.

The jerseys? Of course that was a money-making experiment - both for the league and for the contract winning RBK. That the players like the jerseys has to do with the fact that RBK had to go back to the drawing board three times to get it right - which tells you that at least the NHL is trying to cater to the players as it works to improve the image of the league. These were supposed to be ready for the post-lockout season, but they were soundly rejected (the tucked in versions, as I recall).

Finally, there's no way the NHL will *ever* go to the International size rink, or anything bigger than what they have now. First, the retrofit to the already built arenas would be too expensive, and secondly, you can fit more people around the present rinks - taking those seats out means removing the best seats in the house; not a fiscally responsible move.

Now, I don't know where voting for Bush and gas guzzling cars came into this discussion, but can they please exit stage left because they have no relevance. The issues with hockey go to the poor choices of the leadership and the lack of existent programs to support the game. It's a growing sport, and I would suggest that it's probably growing far more than the other big ones except soccer.

Maybe Canadians don't like Bettman's choices, but as misguided as some were, the idea was to expand the reach of "our" game, so perhaps we should give him a bit of a break.

And to the hockey "purists" out there? Things change. You either keep up with the change or get left behind. Simple as that.

[jetsniper]

Only back to the drawing board 3 times, Colin? Or just a figure of speech? Because I heard this morning that RBK came up with over 100 designs before they came up with something that worked. Which like you said, even though it was a money-making strategy, they still have the players needs in mind as well.

[Fanpuck33]

The fact they've been quasi-successful at best goes more to the grass-roots problems (as someone mentioned) along with an incredibly poor marketing strategy (awknowledged by those outside the hockey world). The only way for hockey to permanently establish itself in the lower states is to have large hockey programs installed across the board; the populace has to be exposed to the game from a young age. (And when that happens, Canada's grip on the sport is going to waver dramatically.)

Agreed. The reason hockey has been a success in Columbus (much to my amazement) is the fact that when the pro team before the Jackets, the ECHL's Chill, were around they built two ice facilities in Columbus. Kids could now learn to skate and play youth hockey. This led to many area high schools starting teams. Parents came to like the game their kids were playing and now those kids are growing up as fans of the game. Columbus is now the only city in the US where a person could possibly play an entire career in one city. All the way from youth, to high schoo, to juniors, to college, to the pros.

Also agreed that NHL marketing sucks, as evidenced by my thread on that matter.

[Colin]

Only back to the drawing board 3 times, Colin? Or just a figure of speech? Because I heard this morning that RBK came up with over 100 designs before they came up with something that worked. Which like you said, even though it was a money-making strategy, they still have the players needs in mind as well.

Well, let me rephrase. They had three working designs. This is the one that worked. The other two were rejected.

[KoZed]

http://142.77.49.72/

[RobRock]

Finally, there's no way the NHL will *ever* go to the International size rink, or anything bigger than what they have now. First, the retrofit to the already built arenas would be too expensive, and secondly, you can fit more people around the present rinks - taking those seats out means removing the best seats in the house; not a fiscally responsible move.

Not true. While the physical seats would be removed, the lost revenue would simply be passed on to ticketholders in tickets prices, and would easily and logically be explained by saying, "We had to take out x number of seats to accomodate a larger playing surface and we have to recoup that money." But I do agree that the cost of expanding the ice surface is the biggest obstacle to the idea. Some teams could be looking at a $10 million price tag if they have to shut down a building for a couple of months to install a new ice plant.

[simonus]

Agreed. The reason hockey has been a success in Columbus (much to my amazement) is the fact that when the pro team before the Jackets, the ECHL's Chill, were around they built two ice facilities in Columbus. Kids could now learn to skate and play youth hockey. This led to many area high schools starting teams. Parents came to like the game their kids were playing and now those kids are growing up as fans of the game. Columbus is now the only city in the US where a person could possibly play an entire career in one city. All the way from youth, to high schoo, to juniors, to college, to the pros.

Also agreed that NHL marketing sucks, as evidenced by my thread on that matter.

id argue chicago, with the wolves, kinda qualifies... but I like Columbus' approach to hockey. There is also something to be said to putting a team in a market which has been otherwise ignored.

[Fanpuck33]

id argue chicago, with the wolves, kinda qualifies... but I like Columbus' approach to hockey. There is also something to be said to putting a team in a market which has been otherwise ignored.

What about when players are 19 to 20? I'm pretty sure the USHL is U-18 and I know the AHL is over 20. I don't know of any Chicago area colleges that has an NCAA team, but I could be wrong.

[brobin]

What is all the fuss over the jerseys? They have said repeatedly that the new Jersey doesn't require the teams to change the look of the jersey. For example, you do NOT have to put a different colour under the underarms.

They even stated last night at the all star game, specifically to habs fans, that the habs jersey doesn't not need to to change unless the team want to change it. All they are doing is changing the material and streamlining the fit somewhat. The colour scheme and logos WILL NOT CHANGE!

[Mils]

Meh, you are obviously a jigoistic patriot who is blind to any of the blemishes, and only see the bright spots of your nation ( Like Jack Black in Shallow Hal). I am engaged to an American, so I don't see how I can hate them.

I challenge you to point out one thing in my statement that was driven by hate (tongue in cheek doesn't count!)

That was my point. Glad your jingoism didn't get in the way of understanding it.

Call names and throw dirt all you want, Bacchus. I told you I disengaged. Discretion is the better part of valor. Have a good day.

Colin: Stepping up to the plate in the big leagues with Jets. Obviously a professional.

[Bacchus]

Good grief. You continually ignore what I am saying; you're really getting on my nerves.

Ditto

P.S. 3rd strike is calling someone an idiot.

You make absolutely no sense. 1st, when did I call you stupid? 2nd, when did the first 2 strikes occure.

[Bacchus]

Call names and throw dirt all you want, Bacchus. I told you I disengaged. Discretion is the better part of valor.

Rich, very rich.

Bacchus: I find your opinions generally offensive and disgusting, and I think your bias (perhaps not quite hatred, but close) against Americans is obvious, but deeply rooted, so I'm disengaging from that line of discussion.

I call em as I see em. You don't want to engage, don't start things in the first place. I have no beef with you. But if you care to call my opinions offensive, and disgusting , and biased, you ought to back it up. If you can't, please do not respond to my posts ever again.

Edited January 24, 2007 by Bacchus

[Pierre the Great]

I don't like the new uni's. Why? they look like football players on skates. The uniforms might look more 'streamlined' but the players look still out there because you see their pads. Its a football jersey they look like a football player on ice. And thats not a good thing.

[Mils]

Rich, very rich.

I call em as I see em. You don't want to engage, don't start things in the first place. I have no beef with you. But if you care to call my opinions offensive, and disgusting , and biased, you ought to back it up. If you can't, please do not respond to my posts ever again.

[Mils]

I don't like the new uni's. Why? they look like football players on skates. The uniforms might look more 'streamlined' but the players look still out there because you see their pads. Its a football jersey they look like a football player on ice. And thats not a good thing.

I agree with you that the appearance of hockey players should remain unique from football or any other sport because it's representative of a history that is unique from football, baseball, etc... (Also valuable for marketing that the image remain independent.) The classic jerseys and painted goalie helmets are a good example of this. No other sport has great uniforms like hockey. Basketball, baseball, football, etc... just have colors with "Los Angeles" or whatever written across the front and number on the back.

[Pierre the Great]

I agree with you that the appearance of hockey players should remain unique from football or any other sport because it's representative of a history that is unique from football, baseball, etc... (Also valuable for marketing that the image remain independent.) The classic jerseys and painted goalie helmets are a good example of this. No other sport has great uniforms like hockey. Basketball, baseball, football, etc... just have colors with "Los Angeles" or whatever written across the front and number on the back.

So you saw the jerseys like I did and say "hey they look like immovable sticks out there" By having a tighter jersey it makes the players come off 'stiff' like. They look like football players. Whats the point of doing a move with your upper body now? They look like they have stiff shoulders.

[Bacchus]

[Colin]

I had a very difficult time with the new jerseys. They're so aerodynamic that the players were skating faster than I could watch.

[Fanpuck33]

I don't like the new uni's. Why? they look like football players on skates. The uniforms might look more 'streamlined' but the players look still out there because you see their pads. Its a football jersey they look like a football player on ice. And thats not a good thing.

I honestly don't see a big difference. Aside from the bottom looking more like the shape of a dress shirt than a sweater, the difference is very minor. I mean, the jerseys are already tight enough that you can see through to undershirts when players have a white jersey on.

[jetsniper]

I honestly don't see a big difference. Aside from the bottom looking more like the shape of a dress shirt than a sweater, the difference is very minor. I mean, the jerseys are already tight enough that you can see through to undershirts when players have a white jersey on.

Same for me, there really wasn't much difference in the look of the player. They're more in the form of NLL jerseys which I like since my Roughnecks jersey is highly comfortable. Which I happen to be wearing right now.

I really won't be able to tell until I get my own. Until then, I'll save my judgement.